807

In cases of equal shareholding and director representation among shareholders, where a deadlock arises in the day-to-day management of the company, the deadlock should be resolved by one group purchasing the shares of the other – Mr. Hormouz Phiroze Aderianwalla and Anr. Vs. Del. Seatek India Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. – NCLT Mumbai Bench

NCLT Mumbai Bench held that the Petitioners and respondents are 50:50 shareholders of the company. Accordingly, the value per equity share of the Company as on 31.12.2022 is Rs. 26,179. In view of the above discussion and findings, this Bench is of the considered view that, the petitioners be directed to purchase the shareholding of R2 and R3, in R1 Co within six months, accordingly the respondents shall exit the Company.

In cases of equal shareholding and director representation among shareholders, where a deadlock arises in the day-to-day management of the company, the deadlock should be resolved by one group purchasing the shares of the other – Mr. Hormouz Phiroze Aderianwalla and Anr. Vs. Del. Seatek India Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. – NCLT Mumbai Bench Read Post »

Suspended Directors are not required to be noticed nor they are necessary party to liquidation application filed by Resolution Professional – Mehulkumar Arvindbhai Patel and Anr. v. Vinod Tarachand Agarwal – NCLAT New Delhi

Hon’ble NCLAT held that in the application which was filed by the liquidation by the Resolution Professional, the Appellant who are Suspended Director were not required to be noticed nor they are necessary party to the said liquidation application to oppose liquidation. Liquidation process commences on resolution passed by the CoC deciding to liquidate the Corporate Debtor as per the scheme of IBC. Appeal is dismissed.

Suspended Directors are not required to be noticed nor they are necessary party to liquidation application filed by Resolution Professional – Mehulkumar Arvindbhai Patel and Anr. v. Vinod Tarachand Agarwal – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Issue of interest is an inseparable part of the award and cannot be divorced from the latter, if Arbitrator refused to decide on the interest component, Court would be called upon to decide the legality of that decision – Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. F. Harley and Company Pvt. Ltd. – Calcutta High Court

Hon’ble High Court held that:
(i) A logical deduction of the relevant part of the award would be that leaving the issue on the question of interest undecided would also amount to a “decision”.
(ii) The fact of the refusal of the arbitral tribunal to decide on the question of interest being a decision is fortified from the consequence of the ‘indecision’.
(iii) The issue of interest is an inseparable part of the award and cannot be divorced from the latter. To carry the happy analogy forward, an award is indisputably a marriage of the principal amount + the interest component.
(iv) Naturally, if the arbitrator refused to decide on the interest component, as claimed by the applicant, the section 34 Court would be called upon to decide the legality of that decision either on an application filed by the applicant or by the petitioner award-debtor herein. Since the petitioner award-debtor has grounded its challenge to the award also on the issue of interest and the applicability of the MSMED Act, the issue requires adjudication by the Court.

Issue of interest is an inseparable part of the award and cannot be divorced from the latter, if Arbitrator refused to decide on the interest component, Court would be called upon to decide the legality of that decision – Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. F. Harley and Company Pvt. Ltd. – Calcutta High Court Read Post »

Scroll to Top